It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Don Jr. Proved Correct About Meeting With Russian Lawyer, Memo Obtained.

page: 16
38
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Didn't you just say the fec?




posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Yes the FEC does.
When FEC makes determinations of what "things of value" are the FEC issues AO's.
FEC AO's are legal precedent on FEC regulations.
I linked several FEC AO's that list things one might think were "things of value" that the FEC determined were not.
Intellectual property was one of those things even though there is no CFR definition of intellectual property.

Before this goes to the DOJ who would prosecute a willful violation of an FEC regulation, the FEC would have to determine a violation actually took place.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: luthier

Yes the FEC does.
When FEC makes determinations of what "things of value" are the FEC issues AO's.
FEC AO's are legal precedent on FEC regulations.
I linked several FEC AO's that list things one might think were "things of value" that the FEC determined were not.
Intellectual property was one of those things even though there is no CFR definition of intellectual property.

Before this goes to the DOJ who would prosecute a willful violation of an FEC regulation, the FEC would have to determine a violation actually took place.


In your opinion they would consider hacked emails intellectual property?

That is your fail. They may consider if it fits a thing of value but they would t consider it intellectual property.

Think of it as performance enhancing drugs. Blood doping was legal until they had to deal with the first case where they used the guidelines in the code. They didn't attach random meanings of unrelated things.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

"Hacked emails" would be stolen property would they not?
Receiving stolen property is a crime is it not?
Did Don jr receive stolen property at this meeting? If so I missed that. If you have a source for that please link it.


From an AO dealing with foreign nationals and "things of value"
www.fec.gov...



The Act and Commission regulations prohibit foreign nationals, directly or indirectly, from making a “contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value . . . in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.” 2 U.S.C. 441e(a)(1)(A); see also 11 CFR 110.20(b). However, the Act and Commission regulations also provide that the term “contribution” does not include “the value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee.” 2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)(i); see also 11 CFR 100.74.

Another AO
www.fec.gov...



The Act and Commission regulations also provide that the term “contribution” does not include “the value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(B)(i) (formerly 2 U.S.C. § 431(8)(B)(i)); see also 11 C.F.R. § 100.74. Applying this “volunteer services exception” in the context of foreign nationals, the Commission has concluded that a foreign national entertainer who performed without compensation at a candidate’s fundraiser did not provide a contribution to that candidate. See Factual & Legal Analysis at 6, MURs 5987, 5995, and 6015 (Hillary Clinton For President) (Feb. 30, 2009), eqs.fec.gov... Similarly, in Advisory Opinion 2004-26 (Weller), the Commission found that a foreign national would not provide a contribution to a candidate by participating without compensation in certain of the candidate’s campaign-related activities, including the solicitation of contributions, attendance at political events, and meeting with the candidate and his campaign committee. Because the services would not be contributions, they would not be subject to the prohibition on contributions from foreign nationals. Advisory Opinion 2004-26 (Weller) at 2; see also Advisory Opinion 2007-22 (Hurysz) at 3 (“[T]he value of volunteer services provided to your campaign by Canadian nationals would not constitute a prohibited in-kind contribution to your campaign.”); Advisory Opinion 1987-25 (Otaola) at 1 (concluding that foreign national’s “work as a volunteer without compensation would not . . . result in a contribution to a candidate because the value of uncompensated volunteer services is specifically exempted from the definition of contribution under the Act”).


Seems to me that if personal services of foreign nationals collecting dirt on an opponent were volunteered to trump, and no compensation was given this would be in line with other AO's issued by the FEC for personal services without compensation.

Ultimately it would be for the FEC to decide, and if in willful violation for the DOJ to prosecute.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: luthier

"Hacked emails" would be stolen property would they not?
Receiving stolen property is a crime is it not?
Did Don jr receive stolen property at this meeting? If so I missed that. If you have a source for that please link it.


From an AO dealing with foreign nationals and "things of value"
www.fec.gov...



The Act and Commission regulations prohibit foreign nationals, directly or indirectly, from making a “contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value . . . in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.” 2 U.S.C. 441e(a)(1)(A); see also 11 CFR 110.20(b). However, the Act and Commission regulations also provide that the term “contribution” does not include “the value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee.” 2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)(i); see also 11 CFR 100.74.

Another AO
www.fec.gov...



The Act and Commission regulations also provide that the term “contribution” does not include “the value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(B)(i) (formerly 2 U.S.C. § 431(8)(B)(i)); see also 11 C.F.R. § 100.74. Applying this “volunteer services exception” in the context of foreign nationals, the Commission has concluded that a foreign national entertainer who performed without compensation at a candidate’s fundraiser did not provide a contribution to that candidate. See Factual & Legal Analysis at 6, MURs 5987, 5995, and 6015 (Hillary Clinton For President) (Feb. 30, 2009), eqs.fec.gov... Similarly, in Advisory Opinion 2004-26 (Weller), the Commission found that a foreign national would not provide a contribution to a candidate by participating without compensation in certain of the candidate’s campaign-related activities, including the solicitation of contributions, attendance at political events, and meeting with the candidate and his campaign committee. Because the services would not be contributions, they would not be subject to the prohibition on contributions from foreign nationals. Advisory Opinion 2004-26 (Weller) at 2; see also Advisory Opinion 2007-22 (Hurysz) at 3 (“[T]he value of volunteer services provided to your campaign by Canadian nationals would not constitute a prohibited in-kind contribution to your campaign.”); Advisory Opinion 1987-25 (Otaola) at 1 (concluding that foreign national’s “work as a volunteer without compensation would not . . . result in a contribution to a candidate because the value of uncompensated volunteer services is specifically exempted from the definition of contribution under the Act”).


Seems to me that if personal services of foreign nationals collecting dirt on an opponent were volunteered to trump, and no compensation was given this would be in line with other AO's issued by the FEC for personal services without compensation.

Ultimately it would be for the FEC to decide, and if in willful violation for the DOJ to prosecute.



I think you also missed I created the hypothetical very clearly that it COULD have happened and we don't KNOW anything.

Intellectual property still not part of the equations as those are "works of the mind" was my point.

The services are not all intellectual property.

Dirt is not intellectual property unless it's made up.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

So no hacked emails then?

So what was illegal about the meeting then?

Also from the last AO linked:



Advisory Opinion 1987-25 (Otaola) at 1 (concluding that foreign national’s “work as a volunteer without compensation would not . . . result in a contribution to a candidate because the value of uncompensated volunteer services is specifically exempted from the definition of contribution under the Act”


There is FEC AO legal precedent that a foreign nationals uncompensated volunteer services is specifically exempted from the definition of contributions under the act.
Which means they are not a thing of value.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: luthier

So no hacked emails then?

So what was illegal about the meeting then?

Also from the last AO linked:



Advisory Opinion 1987-25 (Otaola) at 1 (concluding that foreign national’s “work as a volunteer without compensation would not . . . result in a contribution to a candidate because the value of uncompensated volunteer services is specifically exempted from the definition of contribution under the Act”


There is FEC AO legal precedent that a foreign nationals uncompensated volunteer services is specifically exempted from the definition of contributions under the act.
Which means they are not a thing of value.


Wow you are slow.

Did I say I knew anything?

Why don't you tell me what took place at the meeting that way I can make a valid opinion.

My point is any number of illegal things could have happened...

Do you know what went down if not you have no point at all.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Speculations. Nothing of substance.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join